Biden seemed to present his argument better on everything but Libya. They look like fucking morons when it comes to that and Romney will destroy Obama on that on the big stage on Tuesday. However, the only memorable takeaway from this debate is how Biden laughed the entire time. Really didn't come off well, but it isnt going to really matter. This debate will do very little to nothing to affect the race.

I thought Biden was effective, and won the debate after the first 10 min on Libya ... where he looked like a fool.

You need to be aggressive to win debates. While Biden pushed the limits (was over the top, may push some people away), if you sit there and act polite and wait to be asked to speak ... you're gonna get steamrolled. Especially with moderators that allow it like these first two.

Thought Biden was effective on three fronts where the Dems have the public on their side: the war in Afghanistan, Medicare, and the tax cuts that Romney and Ryan can't explicitly explain how they are going to pay for.

I don't think Ryan did poorly, and would agree that this debate (like almost all VP debates) will have little impact on the polls that we'll see come out early next week. I think both guys held their own, avoided major gaffes, and showed that they're both clearly worthy of Vice President status.

Biden was a trip though. Don't agree on a lot policy wise with the guy, and it's real fun to bag on him, but only the most partisan Republicans would say this guy hasn't been an effective public servant that can walk the walk and talk the talk when it comes to any matters involving the military.

The god damn non stop out loud laughing and just blatant interrupting ... was just so over the top bat shit crazy. Reminded me of the Al Gore sigh-fest in debate II eight years ago ... that did end up hurting Gore. It hurt him in the polls, then in debate three, he was so cognizant of it that he kissed Bush's ass the whole time. This doesn't hurt the Obama ticket like that hurt the Gore ticket though.

The "my friend over here", "these guys", calling Romney "Romney" (instead of Governor) was funny too. I thought Biden was very effective the times he was talking to the camera, telling voters "use common sense", "think about it", and "has your Medicare been affected?" The piece where he busted Ryan on writing two letters asking for stimulus funds for his constituents was also effective, and something Ryan should have been better prepared for.

"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

The aggressive, dismissive smiling and laughing put me off, but the Dems don't, and shouldn't, care about me. I think they are the phoniest, most cynically disingenuous anyway.

I think Biden's behavior was planned, and intentional. He bullied even when he ran out of things to say. As a way to keep talking, he'd repeat his last throwaway comment while Ryan-or the moderator- was starting to speak.

But my wife sat there while Biden was talking and said, "He's talking to the host as though he thinks he's this big ladies man." Today, I remembered that and wondered if it is more significant than I originally assumed. The women vote is apparently a big component in the swing states...

Peter Berg coming out and telling Romney to stop ripping off his movie/show (Friday Night Lights) with his "Clear Eye, Full Hearts, Can't Lose" line is easily the funniest part of this campaign thus far.

I'm not sure what makes it funnier, Mitt using the FNL line or Berg sending him a scathing letter about it, but it's funny nonetheless.

Really? I do see more shrillness in Fox lately. Used to be tamer, although maybe it's a product of the election season.

The reason Fox boomed of course was due to the void as Hollywood, universities, the old networks and even NPR leaned left. I don't watch Fox much, but can't stand the others. But maybe I'll give CNN a look.

CNN has been better. IMO, they leaned pretty heavily left 10 years ago for what they were trying to pass off as completely neutral. I like John Fox a lot. I watch pretty much 50% Fox, 40% CNN, 10% MSNBC.

"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

Anderson Cooper was dissed by someone from the Obama administration and has been really a bulldog, not accepting the usual obfuscation from some of the spokespersons. Similarly Wolf Blitzer and Candy Crowley are no longer coming off as sycophants.

I think CNN looked around and said there is a market to be grabbed that isn't quite so partisan. I happened to watch Fox that night and it's the same old shit. Hannity makes me want to puke, though I'd say I admire how far he's gotten on the talent god blessed him with. I do believe he's a shining example of the Peter Principle. I can't even watch MSNBC as a classical liberal, progressives are my natural enemy. Someone flips on CNN during the day at the office in the break room and I realize it's a lot of makeup but I just can't take my eyes off of Brook Baldwin.

Not now, not never. This election is much too important to be crowing over (even though libs are thoroughly enjoying the chance today).

On Nov. 7, we'll either be giving our thanks for the American people's fine judgment of the candidates, or we'll be praying that the nation survives four more years. At this point, one's about as likely as the other, even though Gallup is now giving Romney a 51%-45% lead among likely voters, margin of error ±2%.

I wouldn't say Willard won, what's to crow about? I don't think the debate mattered as much as the last one, but at least Obama got his base off of the ledge by going through this debate awake.

Do you think there will be much of a bump from this? I have maintained for weeks that Obama would lose so we shall see (meaning even before the debate-debacle). Too bad I was a puss and didn't drop a couple of G's on Intrade when they had it 80-20. I was basing that on the total lack of enthusiasm this time around which may result in poor turnout.

You know what is staggering, the distrust that a voter feels b/c the media and the current admin play all these games with pertinent information that voters use to gauge and feel out candidates to make decisions. Like the recent update on last week's job report. Both parties do it when in office no doubt, but right now there is one admin in charge and they are a POS.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

The reaction to the first debate had a lot to do with Romney being a decided underdog. And nobody was accepting that a Romney 'win' would make a difference anyway. We had data back to 1980. I was being offered an explanation done in crayons, to help me understand this.

The reaction to the first debate had a lot to do with Romney being a decided underdog. And nobody was accepting that a Romney 'win' would make a difference anyway. We had data back to 1980. I was being offered an explanation done in crayons, to help me understand this.

That excitement was cuz these tards had such a defeated attitude. Not me, nah, in the VP thread I called the Mitt landslide. One little pin prick (first debate) and the Obama cult of personality bubble burst. The EMP HAS NO CLOTHES!

Course, the "no crowing" attitude and the "this means too much" shit is more of the same defeatist bs.

^I got it :)

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Exactly. An election win would only cause relief. A loss is as yet unthinkable in terms of the consequences of the debt, etc.

Christ, the talking points. Every election I hear this same bullshit about how "important it is" or how "it's the most important since", when each election gets less and less important as Congress gets more and more polarized.

No matter who's elected, it'll take 'em 6 months to finally agree on the appetizers to be served at their sessions.

You could elect Lindsay Lohan and it would have the same effect on the nation.

What are your outlets for info, Hiko? Some vague YouTube sources, too?

Of the outlets you use, which specific ones give views other than mostly the view of the left, providing some balance to movies/entertainment TV/universities/MSNBC/NBC/ABC/CBS?

And do you slavishly trust everything they serve up? Do you close yourself off from other sources? I didn't think so- and your identity shouldn't be tied to them. Same goes for me.

I hear CNN is an alternative to Fox for those who want to hear the other side. Sometime soon when I am watching TV, I'll try it. Is CNN it, then?

I watch absolutely zero news programming on TV. This includes ESPN.

As far as internet, I can see how someone that thinks Fox is credible could view a news source as bland as CNN as "the other side", but I'm not a big fan. I usually go to BBC News US/Canada. I like to get my news sources from outside this country - little easier to see the forest when you're not in the trees.

I do think CNN has decent World coverage, which I frequent, but I never use it for anything US related.

I've never checked out Fox News' World coverage, but I'm not sure they know there is a world outside of the US so they might not even have that option.

But, to be honest, the less I pay attention the happier I am. If I'm lucky, by the time I'm 50 I'll live in a cabin in Wyoming without TV or internet or cell phone, just a lot of books, a lot of scotch, and a lot of guns. Or I'll be dead, which is fine too.

Oh, I forgot, the Weather Channel has like 5 minute snippets of non-weather news which usually satisfies. Too quick to inject opinions, enough info that if I want to know more, I can read about it online.

And sometimes I'll listen to NPR news on the radio on the way to drop my daughters off at school (30 minute drive), but only if it's interesting (iffy) and only if sports talk radio is discussing something stupid.

Hikohadon wrote:And sometimes I'll listen to NPR news on the radio on the way to drop my daughters off at school (30 minute drive), but only if it's interesting (iffy) and only if sports talk radio is discussing something stupid.

Hikohadon wrote:And sometimes I'll listen to NPR news on the radio on the way to drop my daughters off at school (30 minute drive), but only if it's interesting (iffy) and only if sports talk radio is discussing something stupid.

So you're saying that you spend most of your time listening to NPR?

Actually, I spend most of my morning drive listening to 97.5. It's the only station playing music at 7:30 am, apparently.

Then during commercials (or if I don't like the song), I check 850. What's Greenberg talking about? LeBron again? Next. 1350. Artrell Hawkins and some other somewhat annoying guy. Are they talking football? No, they're discussing Tiger Woods. Next. 92.3? Hell no, not while Chuck Booms is employed. I don't even bother trying that one. Next. NPR. Anything interesting? Nope, they're airing the opinions of college students about the presidential candidates. Like I care. Next.